I am an advocate overall for this marketplace. I truly appreciate the attentiveness to features that ape owners have asked for. The white-glove custom marketplace on the apecoin domain is not only the right choice, I feel as though its the only correct choice. I have seen many complain that “we want a market place like punks”, but apes & punks are not the same at the smart contract level … so we cannot treat them the same. I feel as though the 1.5% fee is much better than OpenSea, and adding in the incentives down to 0.75% makes it look a lot better. I appreciate the design mock-ups which seem to cohesively fit the BAYC branding & the future outlook as a launch platform and merchandise hub. I have a high level of trust that Magic Eden would ship a high quality product. My most appreciated point from the AIP is the line that states Magic Eden will allow the DAO to discuss how the revenue stream back to the DAO is split. So when you sit here and think 0.75% is still too high … it’s really not … especially considering their willingness to split revenue back to the DAO itself. Now, that being said … here are some key items and features I would like to see in the final version of the marketplace to get my vote:
A very high quality third-party audit of the supposed marketplace build & associated contracts
Social Features on the platform … ability to direct message owners would be outstanding … someone made a great point the other day that no one would purchase on PoshMark if they couldn’t message the seller first
Using the BAYC,MAYC, & BAKC marketplace as an NFT passport for future APE targeted releases … to explain, owners could comfortably connect their wallet to marketplace itself & prove ownership of said tokens … any other projects going forward that want to give release preferences to ape owners could inquire the marketplace to see what wallets own what tokens … instead of requiring a direct wallet connect from most owners vault account … a step further could be to allow owners to add a “hot wallet” address in their profile that would allow these other projects to gather what addresses own apes & what address they prefer to mint something from
This proposal is worth considering and well-timed, opening a discussion on one of the most important “assets” of the DAO, a future marketplace.
Seems clear to me that an internal development by Yuga is not feasible, as such a form of outsourcing model should happen, the question is which kind of outsourcing model? I am no expert in this but I foresee that the contractual relationship will be a complex and highly critical aspect of this project with a third party involved, as such I suggest @magiceden to provide more details about their suggested contractual model.
Then I have 2 major comments:
1) split the revenue fee with the DAO. Postponing the arrangement to a later stage reminds me of the “caps for staking postponed to a later AIP”. This is a cornerstone of the whole collaboration and should be clarified and proposed in advance, not later. I also don’t see how such split would not be a contractual provision between the parties, and not just modifiable by a DAO vote.
Ideally the fee back to the DAO should be as high as possible, eventually “in exchange” for a grant to develop the platform, which was already approved by the DAO and I cite:
"Up to .3% of the Ecosystem Fund for development of an ApeCoin NFT marketplace: This allows for the creation of a decentralized NFT marketplace, subject to advice from counsel, where creators can set their own secondary fee, and the marketplace’s commission fee will feed back into the Ecosystem Fund."
So unless this key item is clarified, for me is a NO.
Otherdeeds: in a new Apecoin marketplace Otherside deeds should be included since the very beginning, we already lost tons of money to OS, if it takes some more weeks doesn’t matter. We should do things right and not in a rush.
In general I disagree to open quickly a marketplace endorsed by the DAO and then open others and lets see how it goes. It should be a comprehensive well designed, a once-for-all marketplace, with a proper decision making process. In this sense I believe Yuga / DAO Council / Foundation should coordinate a pitch with different players, as we don’t know if other players might build a better Apecoin marketplace (or at least I will wish to know the opinion by the founding members of the DAO).
Finally considering the importance and complexity I suggest to extend the community discussion by another week.
Appreciate your time & consideration reviewing this, as well as the feedback provided here.
Happy to always openly chat about what kind of model the DAO wants, and being collaborative partners along the way is a big part of why we brought this the DAO & an proposal process.
Please find response below to your comments!
Response to the above: We are open to different models in our products, however we have been advised that flowing fees back to the DAO will trigger potentially significant legal and/or regulatory considerations and review that may have implications for the entire DAO. This is why we chose to try and build out the marketplace first, and then figure out the fee flow and legal implications later via specific follow on AIPs proposed by the community. As we want this to be the start of a longterm relationship, we want to make sure we follow the best process.
Response to the above: Our initial proposal only covers DAO-specific NFTs - BAYC, MAYC, and BAKC. Going forward we would love to include additional projects voted on by the community in follow on AIPs. Again we definitely want this to be collaborative, so we would love to hear additional community feedback around whether Otherdeeds should be included in this initial proposal!
Hope this helped to address and please shoot over any follow ups! We will also be looking to do a space with the community in the next coming days.
Hey @PolandSprings - Snag Solutions is a B2B services provider building on top of reservoir and thirdweb, with direct support from the Reservoir0x team. We differentiate based on our focus on custom first party marketplace experiences, including surfacing ‘matched items’ across Yuga collections, and building toward social tools like feeds of Twitter spaces/posts from the ApeCoin community.
I was really happy w/ how Magic Eden reached out to many people. At the end of the 30 minute call with me, they said “who else should we talk to?” I liked that professionalism & work ethic.
My contribution to this thread is to request Otherdeeds be included in the marketplace. It’s an important asset that is traded by many people both inside & outside of the BAYC/MAYC & DAO community. It should definitely be included on any marketplace attached to the apecoin domain!
Thanks for the reply and well noted for Otherdeeds.
About the split fees, I still think ME position should be clarified in advance, we don’t know which will be ME position after legal matters will be sorted out.
You could structure your proposal saying that “assuming is legally feasible, out of the total applicable fees, a 0,25% (better more imo) will go back to DAO. IF not feasible, then total fees will be reduced by the same corresponding %” (means will not go into ME pockets but discounted for the marketplace users).
Can confirm that we would not care to bot, nor even know how to on this forum.
Given our reach and general go to market ETH push, the proposal has been getting massive attention in large publications & was shared around virally, as well as even appearing on Coinbase’s Solana trading page - so seems natural it would get a lot of attention.
In case not possible to pay back to the DAO, an even better idea was raised by a competing proposal about a $APE burning mechanism (instead than lowering fees), in this case Apecoin long term holders would benefit with value appreciation.
I would also love to see more advantages to listings within marketpalce than just lower fees, I like for example how an already existing marketpalce called apecoin.x.xyz is doing in regards to the value and Apecoin in general.
Hello! I would like to urge a bit of caution on this decision, and I would also like a little more information on how ME plans to deal with the many known rugs that they continue to sell on their own Marketplace. I’m not so sure that this proposal is something we should agree to without an answer on how they plan to deal with the current scam projects that are sold on their own marketplace. Some of which were launched on their own launchpad and were “doxxed” by ME themselves. This decision and ME’s continued sales and sometimes promotions of projects that rug could wind up negatively affecting the ApeCoin brand.
What does ME plan to do about their current volume of rugged projects on their own marketplace that they continue to sell, and continuing to an ApeCoin marketplace, why should we believe that you will have our best interest in mind when you currently do not have the best interest of your own community in mind?
Our secondary marketplace is open to creators in a more decentralized approach as a marketplace, however anything that is flagged by the community as a rug will be reviewed and take the necessary actions, which may include permanently flagging the collection or removing the collection entirely. We try to find the balance between providing an open decentralized marketplace & educating users on best practices knowing that, with also protecting users ourselves how we can from scam projects on marketplaces.
Speaking specifically to the Launchpad product, we have guidelines in place that were recently even improved to ensure that it is the highest quality launches. We’ve seen some of the most high quality launches on Solana deciding to partner with our launchpad on Solana, which actually improves the ME brand & projects being associated with it. However, nothing can be 100% perfect in this space, and regardless of the high quality ones that do launch with us it is also important to note that in any case a user is still recommended to do due diligence in research, and we make sure to ensure reminding signs of that in the user journey. As leaders in the space we will keep improving launchpad and ensuring it remains the highest quality partnership in the space. Guidelines for projects can be found below:
That being said, we have always prided ourselves on being a WEB3 community based marketplace. We’ve always had the community’s interest in mind on Solana. And when talking to ETH people, we have received strong applauds for this new approach we are bringing to ETH.
For this specific proposal process, we’ve kept that in mind the whole way. Our team has had a huge number of 1 on 1 calls with a large number of BAYC community members in receiving feedback what the community feels they want to see in this proposal, and decided to submit it for AIP rather than just building it to make sure the community has a say along the way & feels confident in our offering.
We’re looking to be a strong resource for the community longterm & this being step 1 in growing that partnership. Our lines always open for a direct call with anyone along the way.
Hey @Moonlyght - Noted on Otherside integration. For merch, re-posting our response to RedVulcan above on what we’re envisioning - Let us know if this addresses, thanks!
The merch component would be intended for distributing new APE foundation merch or DAO-approved merch via integration with platforms like Shopify. We can also help by offering connections to merch brands, merch producers, and ecommerce platforms we know who work with top NFT collections.
For secondaries - we can power this easily for digital-physical NFTs - so if it’s something where an NFT’s utility is redemption of physical merch, we can support the trading + token gating to redeem. For off-chain secondary resale of merch, given enough demand, we could look into integrating a secondary resale platform, like trove recommerce, into the marketplace.